Pleiades 111 - The Perfect All Around Premium Astrograph?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 бер 2024
- Pleiades 111 - bit.ly/3uXdy83
GT 81 Budget Alternative bit.ly/49Fdzwr
As always check out Stellarvue for a real Premium Handmade scope in the U.S. as well and mention the channel for a free 1 on 1 processing session if you do go with one :)
Astro Pixel Processor PROMO CODE!! - (DRI-2024-1) Good till 7-1-2024
Full Length Photoshop Tutorial!: Take your data to the next level!
www.patreon.com/DarkRangersIn...
Join our growing Community for additional help and support including 1 on 1 time.
www.patreon.com/DarkRangersIn...
Agena Astro: Support the Channel while using the fastest shipping company in the US (use within 5 days)
agenaastro.com/?rfsn=7545037....
Telescope Live: 2 Months HALF PRICE:
telescope.live/start/v2?...
Tool Box Link: Copy and Paste into Repositories -
Latest OSC and Narrowband Processing Guide!
1drv.ms/p/s!Al5eCqGxmSqYm2ezA...
If you have any questions, please leave them in the comments, as well as any suggestions for a future videos. If you could please like and subscribe, I would greatly appreciate it. Clear Skies!
Social Media
Website: www.darkrangersinc.com
Instagram: DarkRangersInc
Facebook: Ryan Voykin
Gear: please use these links!
2600 MM bit.ly/3KubXes
2600 MC bit.ly/47o8dEY
AM5 Mount bit.ly/44OwDpD
ASIAIR Plus bit.ly/3KwNV2i
ZWO EFW bit.ly/3YoB1cw
ZWO EAF bit.ly/3Oo3cns
ZWO 220MM bit.ly/43ZPflo
Antlia SHO Filters bit.ly/3DLOu4M
Antlia Triband bit.ly/45eFVuX
Antlia ALPT bit.ly/3OsfQlm
ZWO Power Supply bit.ly/43X5ZcW - Наука та технологія
More than most episodes I recommend watching this in its entirety before drawing a conclusion. Depending on when you stop watching, if you do end early, it could definitely affect the take away from the review, it does tend to grow in its depth and insight throughout the entire 30-ish minutes.
Join our growing Community for additional help and support!
www.patreon.com/DarkRangersInc?
For sure a great review. Definitely thought I got a good idea of it's performance and strengths/deltas.
Thanks for all the work and time you put in reviewing their scope! Yours is the first William Optics Pleiades series review I’ve seen that was as in depth as I would want to see before considering purchasing one. I am glad that companies like Agena are putting the products they sell in the hands of people like you who want to do the work it takes to do review like this. It was definitely worth the time it took me to watch. Thank you Dark Ranger!
Thank you Greg, appreciate you commenting and being a part of the community as well!
1am in Melbourne Aus, a clear Saturday night, imaging the Statue of Liberty Nebula and everything going well, Was waiting for the meridian flip then off to bed but it has clouded over now so covering the scope so it is great to watch this video in the meantime. That looks like a great scope!!
Thank you for tuning in as always glad to give you a little entertainment during the clouds!
excellent review. I'm constantly impressed with your knowledge of the market too and bringing in appropriate comparisons to position this in the market for a all around review, not just extolling the virtues of the optics or the cool new features.
That is an amazing looking scope.
It’s not slacking on the looks department. Would look amazing on an NYX-101
Thanks for the great review. Really finicky backfocus makes this really difficult to recommend at this price point, in my opinion. I have some worry that collimation may not held due to the number of optical elements used. At this point, you are also hitting Takahashi Epsilon price bracket which offers flat field up to full frame.
Yeah for sure that was what my “playing in a big pond with big fish comment” was referring to. Some pretty nice stuff at that level.
In this same ballpark, I really love my Askar 107PHQ. Thanks for this review.
Glad to hear!
First time coming across the channel, but you got me as a new subscriber!
Excellent video, you covered everything I wanted to see but you also sadly confirmed my suspicions from what I saw of the Pleiades 68. I'm a user of the Redcat51 and FLT120 and I can say that star shapes with my QHY268M (IMX571) are great with both telescopes...once you've dial in the back focus (FLT only) and resolve any tilt. If you set the adjustable distance on the flattener of the FLT120 per WO spec, then it works great, but if you're out by 0.5mm then you will notice effects on the corner stars, even on APS-C.
With regards to the Pleiades 111, it's a shame it is so sensitive to back focus. Let's remember that it's not a petzval design, I believe it is a triplet with built in reducer (check their spot diagram reports, it says SED660 x 111 x0.8). I think that either WO need to refine the backfocus tolerance during manufacture of these scopes or they need to include some form of back focus adjustment like on their flatteners/reducers so that each user can hone in on their back focus requirements.
In terms of bang for buck, within their own product line this telescope is priced at 3,700GBP on FLO which is similarly priced to the FLT120 plus reducer (3,908GBP). Both telescopes have similar speeds (f/4.8 and f/5.4) and focal length (528mm and 624mm). With the FLT120 you also have the flexibility of using the x1 flattener so you can shoot at native 780mm focal length @ f/6.5. It's down to the user to determine which one would better suit their needs.
In my opinion, I can't justify swapping my current setup to the new Pleiades 68/111 range. What do you think?
What a beast
Thank you for the video. Very helpful on my decision to purchase. I have a question on balancing the scope with this amount of weight. How much weight did you add and how do you know where to locate the weight on the bar to balance? Thank you for any help.
I have this scope and it is sitting on my work bench currently. I am in the process of doing my build out with this scope and I too was surprised with the weight of the scope and which I did not expect. With most of my other WO scopes they are somewhat balanced out with the weight but after thinking about it more the weight of the glass is the biggest factor. I will be using a ZWO ASI2600MC Pro with this scope. You did an awesome review and thank you for pointing out the back focus issue I will have this in consideration when I finished building out my rig.
Appreciate it! Yeah, I was kind of blown away by the weight initially, and I had just received a SVX 140 from stellarvue so I was prepared for a heavy scope and it felt almost the same because it is! 22 vs 28 for a scope much smaller but even with the gear it’ll be under 30 and ok for most.
I have seen most people switch the rings to go on either side of the focus knobs. Since I will likely give it back after a few months, I usually just leave them as they are. But that could help the balance issue. It does come with a nice dovetail as you know.
I think you’ll be fine with APSC and maybe even full frame depending on your copy. I did try it with a 55 and 58mm apsc set up and both were pretty solid. So you likely won’t have to worry about it with that sensor size.
I just finished shooting Orion with my 2600 MC for the last several nights, and each subframe looked great.
Rather nice.
Those finla images are mind blowing❤ Scope looks the business too. It has the vibe of a wrapped Bantely continental GT😅
The APSC images were a pleasure to work with at the end I hope most folks stayed that long.
Ok let’s see it.
Had same issues on Full Frame with different scope and got it sorted in half an hour with M54/M48 Askar Backfocus Adjuster. Give it a try, worked wonders for me.
Funny, I just recommended that to somebody else and they ordered it. The problem is it won’t work for me. It doesn’t allow me to run either and EFW or my OAG. It also wouldn’t give me enough adjustment essentially gives you 16 to 20 mm of total spacing depending on how you use it and I ran out of travel if you watch the rest of the episode you’ll see that when I went to 60 mm which I’m pretty sure I would’ve needed, I was so close to 0 mm on the focus that I couldn’t get the stars and focus anymore by adding the backspace.
For me, with this scope, there’s no way to achieve backspace in the corners on a full frame. To add the Backspace I need would put me out of range for the focuser. I would need to go to like -2-3mm on the focuser which obviously isn’t possible.
Yea I’m not getting up at 6am to watch this :)
Later though! lol
You give an excellent presentation. I like that the scope has an internal focuser, but I wish they would go one more step and incorporate a focusing motor with an interface compatible with the add-on focusers.
Thank you for the kind words! That’s why I’ve got to the Primaluce focusers they attach to any type so easily. The only downside and I’m working with them to potentially include at least one adapter so there’s a higher likelihood you won’t need to purchase one. But otherwise for only $60 more than the base ZWO and $20 more than the full ZWO EAF you get a really nice Italian made unit. It also has Wi-Fi and you can now connect to the Eagle in “ghost mode” with NO USB cable! Which is awesome! I’ve been testing it this last week and it connects super fast and has been 100% reliable
Thanks Ryan. Very thorough. One question. What is that little weather station ECCO?
Thank you, I know it’s the lengthy video, but I’d rather have too much info and not enough!
The ECCO is a weather station that measures all the vital information and has three outputs for temperature probes that you stick in your dew strap. That way it can measure the actual temperature of the scope and strap combination and make adjustments according to what it knows. The dewpoint actually is that way you’re getting exactly what you need and not not using more power than necessary.
Definitely a “nice to have” along with the motorized, flat panel. Although once you use them for a while, they quickly start to feel like a necessity 🤦🏻♂️.
Ryan, super thorough and detailed review. I found your channel a month or so ago and have been working through your content and really enjoyed this particular review. I have been also enjoying astrophotopgraphy for a little over 2 years. My main shooter is a Esprit 120 ED with a 2600MM and Astonomik LRGBSHO. My widefield is a redcat51 and my galaxy shooter is an EHD11. Mountwise I have a Paramount MyT and a ZWO AM5 at my disposal. For the past year I have been thinking of upgrading my 120mm to a Tak FSQ106ED (I already have a Nitecrawler for it im using on the 120mm) as well as adding a full frame camera to my collection. I was wondering what you think I would be the main thing I'd be giving up to go with this scope instead. Thanks!
The “big fish in a big pond” I was referring to would be something like the 106FSQ. If you’re not in an extreme hurry, I would hang tight as I am talking to the owner of Stellarvue to put together a 102SVX that’ll be F3.9 for roughly 400mm but buy a handmade company in the U.S. that will be throughly tested by yours truly before one is even close to be sold.
There’s a big need for a high-quality fast midsize Apo and I was really hoping this one would execute 100%.
When I caught wind of the scope, I put in the request back in early November, because I was hoping this would be the perfect all around faster scope, I really wanted to give this thing a rave review. I was a little sad when I saw, I could get a full frame of flat stars, and had to tinker with it several nights to get it going.
Also once I see that this and the 68 did have some issues that kind of sealed the deal on moving forward with the idea of just doing it as a project. The whole “can’t get it done right, do it yourself” idea. The FSQ is a great scope but very expensive and a 2+ year waitlist currently if you buy through a dealer. It was designed for a CCD sized pixel ~ 9micron and needs their newer corrector to have a chance at working with smaller cmos censors. Their FSQ85 is supposed to correct better for CMOS and is actually available. This is all from the conversations I’ve had wind the head of Takahashi U.S. they do have a new line up coming out this year as well more designed for modern cmos cameras. So either way it’s worth a wait at this point and if you’re looking in that league I would say wait before getting the 111
@@darkrangersinc Thanks so much for the detailed and well considered response. The three big attractions for me with the FSQ106 is 1. The four element design and the fact that if it focuses, it's flat 2. The speed 3. Full frame compatibility. As far as availability I thought they were close to having stock available to ship now if you could swallow $7,330 price tag. That said I'm looking at older stuff on the second hand market. Since they are all pretty much the same optically from the 106ED to the 106EDXIV I am in good shape since I plan to replace all of the focusing and CCA with a nightcrawler. I don't know a lot about Stellarvue's lineup but I'll give it a closer look to and see if they have something in the lineup that checks the boxes. Thanks again for all of the content and the great review!
@@TexasEngineerScotty in terms of availability I’ve spoken directly with the head of Tak USA within the last few weeks and he said it’s currently a 2+ year weight for the 106 while the 85 has five or six available for shipping.
If it were me, I would wait for their new product line to come out that’s designed for CMOS. The 106 without the newer reducer cannot focus a spot to sub 3.7 µm pixel according to the person I was talking to and needs the reducer/flattener they developed, which is I believe north of $1500.
It would also be worth the wait to see how the SVX Development pans out it’s being designed specifically to fill this fast midsize apo gap. I’ll likely be one of the first to test it and once it’s perfect put out a video.
@@darkrangersinc Thanks again Ryan! I think I may have observed either some boutique astro dealers getting their hands on one or a return. I appreciate the clarification. Also excited to hear about any new designs optimized for CMOS. I have been in line also for a 110 GTX which I expect to get drawn for never...Lets see which happens first!! Also while watching Stellarvue and their SVX line.
What's your Bortle over there? Impressive subs. I always struggle with the right numbers in RGB combo in APP.
B5, I just use the SHO Hubble # 4 drop down, which uses the Ha like a Lum as well. It came out almost exactly like you see it in the pre-ps version.
I was just gonna tweak the stretch, a hair from 15% sigma 3, 2.5% added some contrast and then a tiny bit of star sharpening but I liked how they looked near full size so I left them.
For the similar price, I'm leaning more toward the Askar 130phq with the free reducer from AgenaAstro. Thanks for sharing.
This deal? bit.ly/42Y5wZ7
With an OTA that fancy-shmancy I would definitely want a hard case.
Yeah, after talking to several of these companies now somewhat regularly I could say well it would be nice. You would definitely see an increase in the price as it all does get included so personally, I’d rather get something that’s good enough and then if I wanted to upgrade be able to pick out my own and spend the money the way I wanted too. A nice hard case for this scope would be something like my pelican 1615 air and it’s ~ $450 so it would have likely pushed this over $4k and I’m sure they wanted to avoid it.
But I agree, I absolutely would recommend a hard case for travel, but I think you could get away with this one for a bit
The Askar FRA series is an out of the box much cheaper OTA! No backspace problems as it ia a Petzval design, as this WO should be!
Yeah, I agree for the money. The FRA is a solid scope for most. I just wish that the FRA would list what glass they are using along with the PHQ. My gut tells me that if they were using top-of-the-line glass like FPL 53, or FCD 100 they would advertise it.
SharpStar which is the same company advertises the FCD 100 glass it uses on the Z4, one of their more premium higher priced scopes given its size and it shows me that when they do use premium products, they let you know so I’m left to assume the FRA scopes are not using the same level of glass.
I think for most people though, unless you have a more premium scope sitting right next to it to compare it to will be fairly happy, and even in the case of this scope, most folks aren’t using full frame camera yet. But I have a feeling with all the competitors coming into the marketplace. It will drive the price down on them, making them more available while simultaneously requiring scope manufacturer to back up, their full frame claims.
Thanks for your reply. I agree that companies should be transparent and forward with the information on their products. However, I think that amateurs put too much emphasis on the glass type and less on the actual quality of the images produced. More companies will be dodging the reference of the type of glass, as they come up with cheaper and very effective OTA. The FRA600 is a terrific telescope, with amazing quality, at a very competitive price... It is a shame Sharpstar does not ask you to test one!
Can you make soon two Videos. One about the ZWO AM mount and one about the Prima Luce Lab Eagle, thank you!
I have two episodes going over my experience with the ZWO ecosystem (it’s not good). As well as the SCA 260 review where I show its performance with a 40lb scope that it claims it can handle but could not. So plenty of AM5 content. The Eagle will be featured in Part 2 of my NINA series. Part 1 does talk about it a bit but Part 2 will expand.
So check out the rest of the channel. It’s already got what you’re looking for including recommendations for alternatives to the AM5 (NYX-101 review coming soon) and it handled the same scope the AM5 couldn’t, easily.
4k for these stars? Unbelievable!
Well, the 1st drawback I see is you sacrafice the handle in favor of the power box. So how to carry it? Can´t the power box be installed on the side of the telescope?
And why do u use an AM5 mount when u use counterwaights?
Keep watching you’ll see a handle free set up. I do also explain why I had to use the handle, I even show myself carrying it out to the rig!
Regarding the counterweights, I am constantly swapping scopes for testing and review. The last one was 40lbs and needed counterweights check only review on the SCA 260 and you’ll see why 👍🏼. It’s easier to just leave them on and it doesn’t do any harm. There’s no point in taking them on and off that would be more work and to feed the convenience. Factor of not actually needing them for certain scopes but having it there when I do.
Coffey and biskits at the ready.
Quite the cable management you got there. Taking pretty pictures is getting messy and expensive....oh I'm sorry "images". I went back to visual.
Yeah, I knew I was going to swap set up at some point to the 2600 and use the eagle on another rig. so I don’t bother with intricate cable management for a couple nights of imaging. The method I use where I basically take them all in my hand and wrap them a couple times and then use a silicone tie actually works really well there’s no dangling cables and although it looks like a birds nest, it’s very effective and functional at least 😁
Regarding your reluctance to the Askar series scopes ( phq etc ) . I get it . Not disclosing the type of glass used for the lenses does make one wonder about capability and possible flaws .
Having said that , the price point on those scopes is very attractive to say the least . For us noobies out here we could really use your expertise in rating them.
and would benefit the astrophotography community as a whole.
In lieu seeing that then , for me , it’s off to Stellarvue and blowing the budget to smithereens .
Having used the SVX140 now for a bit and having 7 of the DRI community Members pick up a stellarvue mostly from Askars and brands like that I can very EASILY say it’s with the investment. If you look at the smaller sizes, it’s actually not that big of a gap from the PHQ.
Compare the 102 to the 107 it’s not far off - same ball park. One has top-of-the-line glass that is hand built and tested multiple times before leaving the factory. With incredible customer service where you can call and get the a real person usually the owner anytime they are open
The other is mystery glass, mass produced, and not tested before leaving the factory, and I just called to get a replacement mirror for my OAG from Askar (the tiny little 11MM prism) and they quoted me $100 for the mirror and $50 for shipping lol. So I can safely say Stellarvue is worth the extra investment. The FWHM same target same time on the 111 vs the 140 Stellaevue is 2.1 vs 1.7 for the average star that’s a lot sharper (~25%). And if something goes wrong Vic will back it up. Let him know you came from the channel and he will take great care of you I promise.
Just caught up with your reply Ryan . Can’t thank you enough!
Any updates on this review? I was looking into getting this to pair with my 6200mm but now I am not so sure. Did they ever respond to you and fix the corners?
Agena Reached out to them to let them know. in this case there is no real fix because I’ve run out of focus travel before I am able to add enough backspace. so the only outcome would be having to send the entire scope back and have them adjust it.
I always have the option to buy the equipment after at a discount, but I think you can imagine in this situation. I will not be exercising that opportunity so I’ll be sending it back and I’m sure they will get it fixed before they sell it. I would hope.
Wow, impressive unit, great review. The only real downside is the pice, ouch.
Hi Ryan, I am curious as to the imaging train you put together for this scope? It seems it is strict at 55mm backfocus, you seem to have an OAG, EFW and astrocam. Must have been a ‘just’ fit? Can you elaborate? I just ordered a 111 and want to use it with an Asi2600mc pro, Filter drawer and an OAG if possible. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks!
Dave (Montreal, Canada)
Dave, I really made sure to document the backspace “journey” with this scope I suggest perhaps watching through most of it. I really don’t think there’s anyway I could have been more specific with my imaging train set up. I started exactly at 55mm as suggested and went through a couple more spacers to fix the issue which I mention verbally and overlay in the video and even show myself measuring it with calipers and installing the additional spacers briefly. If you get a copy similar to mine you should be fine with the apsc sized censor as I mention a couple times in the video it was full frame that showed the major flaws with this scope.
Thanks, and yes I did see the measurement part of the video, my OAG is much wider. In any case each system is different. Appreciate you responding.
Can you tell me what 3mm spacer you used? Thanks. Mark
The one provided by QHY in the set included with their camera
You mentioned in the video - if only they offered a reducer? I think this scope basically already has the reducer built-in. Think of it as a four-element Petzval-style refractor (a Redcat 111, if you will) and then with a built-in three-element reducer. That is why you have a defined required back-spacing for the Pleiades line. So, essentially, this is a 111mm (660mm focal length f/6) refractor with a built-in 0.8X reducer making it 528mm f/4.8 for $3,800. Compare that with Askar 107PHQ (107mm f/7) with 0.7X reducer making it 524mm f4.9. The Askar PHQ line is very well respected and this combo costs $2,850, so $950 cheaper. The Pleiades has FPL-53 glass and their internal focuser and the Askar doesn't state their ED glass type, but has shown to be excellent. To some people, this is worth $950 extra and to others not. Now, the Pleiades 68 is much more interesting to me. Basically, it is a sized up faster Redcat 51 (Redcat 68 "Veloce") as it has basically the same focal length, but f/3.8 vs f/4.9. But likewise, it looses the Petzval-style back-spacing and has built-in reducer requiring a specific back-spacing. I absolutely love my RC51, but am temped to get the PL68 to be faster, but the size and weight, not to mention the double cost have me thinking that I keep the RC51 for my small travel scope. The Askar FRA400 with 0.7X reducer gives you 280mm focal length @ f/3.9, so pretty similar for $1,450 vs PL68 for $2,000. I expect the PL68 with FPL-53 glass to perform better than reduced FRA400 in terms of CA and star size, but a lot of people have been happy with the FRA series with reducers. I would say the PL111 has a relatively poor value as it is just too costly, while the PL68 has a mediocre to good value, but is the more interesting scope due to f/3.8. It is generally a higher-quality option than reduced FRA at 38% extra cost, and to many is probably worth that premium.
Yes this is all pretty common knowledge stuff the Askar has never been one I recommend heavily with the whole “mystery glass” component. Im not a big fan companies that don’t include reporting or at least the glass type. If they were using top end glass they would tell you. You do use FCD100, Flourite, or FPL-53 and not label it as such. The stuff in their orange colored line up only has a single piece I actually found out what it is and it’s some glass type I’ve literally never heard of.
You will probably never see me do a review on an Askar Scope for this reason. I don’t necessarily think they’re bad it’s just not for me 🤷🏻♂️. I’ve also seen way to many independent tests on their stuff to go with them I think the PHQ line is probably their best best based on results and much slower >F7 scopes are much easier to correct and most folks using Askar scopes are often not using a FF camera so it won’t show the issues.
When I talked about the reducer, I mean to reduce it further from F4.8. They have done so with the PL68 so I’m assuming theirs a way to engineer it. F4.8 really isn’t anything to special as some of their FLT and GT lines are faster than F4.8 with their reducers and still will produce a flat field advertised to 44mm. They’ve even begun to implement adjustable Fleenors, which I have on my 90 mm which is a lot easier to use than trying to work with individual spacers. You can fine-tune it by a 10th of a millimeter if you need to.
It's marketed as Full Frame and needs to perform at that level to command that price. Having to bother with backspacing on a petzval (edit - it's not) is also ridiculous. Great review of the scope! I think with all that you pointed out most wont consider the scope at that price point.
it's not a petzval design - there is a required specific backfocus.
@@Nico.75 Thank you for correcting me! My apologies!
@@clintlemasters6648 it’s not but they do say it’s 55 mm, and they do say it’s a full frame capable scope
@@Nico.75 yeah this one is supposed to be 55 but unfortunately wasn’t but it could be FF capable if the BS is perfect. If you watch long enough, I do showcase another person’s aberration inspector later on who has the scope as well and he also had issues in the corners, unfortunately.
@@clintlemasters6648 You're welcome. Actually I bought the Pleiades 68 because I thought first it was a petzval, then I realised it needs 55mm backfocus... I am still fiddling around now but I think around 57.5mm is the sweet spot. 😁
If that focuses by moving by an internal element, wouldn't the correction change with focus position?
Backspace is static at 55mm according to W.O. It doesn’t change with focus spot that would make it impossible to use multiple filters as they usually need a bit of focus fine tuning between them and if that changed the back space you could never have a corrected image through all your filters
@@darkrangersinc is there a fixed set of elements behind the focusing mechanism?
@@bbasiaga I have a short GIF type video in the the episode that shows how the internals work
@@bbasiaga but yes the focuser has elements behind it
The scope and your knowledge are very impressive, however as a beginner I found this presentation a little intimidating!!!
Yeah, that’s always the delicate act of doing the channel. When I am using a product that’s designed for a more intermediate to advanced Astro photographer. I kind of have to speak at that level. I do try to showcase several visuals as I did here so even if you’re not fully sure what we’re talking about you can at least see the issues and hopefully understand what is being communicated.
Unfortunately, with every video, I’m not able to speak to all audiences or it would be too remedial for some, and advanced for others.
If you do watch till the end, I summarize it and give it a one to five score on several different metrics, which should give you an overall idea on what I’m thinking, as well as the three images that I show using two different cameras
Brilliant! Thanks for taking the time to write a comprehensive response - much appreciated!
I was interested in this scope, but the cost bothered me. I thought it was probably worth it; however, after seeing the stars on the edges of the full frame and the back focus issue, I think I will pass on this scope for now.
Well, I think they will address it for any future scopes going out. They are aware of the issue now like they are with the 68. It looks like it’s not a consistent issue like the 68 because I’ve seen a couple different aberration inspector images now from more than the one additional scope I showed, and most seem to be more than 55 mm but the one I show in the episode looks like it’s actually too close to the sensor, which is actually kind of a tougher problem, because You can always add backspace to your system but it’s often hard to eliminate it.
I do think WO will do whatever they need to to make it right for anybody that does have the issue.
$4k no ty lol, but i really appreciate your frankness in the review
Nice and interesting review. 👍🏼 - It's just very sad with the backfocus... Wouldn't buy it for that price and the low quality (although I do have BlurXterminator). Personally, I think this should not happen to a premium Apo also not also not to a pre-sale (?) model.
You probably have to keep in mind when the episode came out. It’s obviously not going to be presale now months later.
To be totally honest, I was waiting for this first review kind of impatiently.
To say that I'm disappointed is an understatement...
If the backspacing issue is not correcting I'm pretty sure I'll go for the TSAPO110FLAT.
It's the same FL and Aperture, made of FDC100 glass. You don't have the WIFD, but at least it's living to its reputation to have Full Frame capabilities.
Sorry my friend, when I caught wind of the scope back in October I immediately put my name on the list to review it because I thought “this could be the one”. I was thinking it would be a little bit faster like it’s a little brother. I’m sure there will be plenty of people who get one that works across the full frame and I really wanted to have that happen for me and not have to tinker for several nights in a row trying to dial it in only to realize I ran out of focus travel before I could nail backspace. But at 58 mm APSC is pretty perfect and most people are using that size camera or smaller, but if you want to use FF based on mine and the other aberration inspector I got from one of the other few people that has one it doesn’t look like it’s there yet.
@@darkrangersinc no need to be sorry ;) you were totally honest and it’s not your fault if this scope does live to its expectations.
I’m more disappointed against WO…
As I sadly use a Sigma FP-L as my Astro camera, I really need to have Ff capabilities :)
I’ll wait a bit to see if WO correct the issue before my upcoming trip to Japan.
If yes, I’ll order one to Kyoei.
If not. Il might go after the FSQ106N
Thanks again for your great review ;)
@@kindjalkazad i’m hoping to work with one of the channel partners to develop a scope to fill this gap. Fast midsized app for FF at a reasonable price designed to work with modern CMOS sensors.
@@darkrangersinc that would really be awesome ;)
kind of suck you most think on backfocus when one thing petzeval brag about is only find focus. but something i dont see at all are dew heater for the WO focuser. with movie optic will it suffer from not get the need heat to avoid dew or frost. and where the hec you put the dew heater when the lens at least on 61 in normaly at the rings!? no1 is not even pointing stuff like this out at all. i think on but 51 red cat gen 3, but new focusers scare me
It's good to have great optics but with all of the post-processing software today, I'm beginning to question why spend extra money on the so-called exceptional lens.
Yeah, as I mentioned, I don’t use that much correction, in my editing. I only used the standard settings to appease the general audience who would point out that I needed to use more to correct it if the settings I normally use which are less than default didn’t correct it all the way.
Unfortunately, as the audience grows so do the number of dissenting opinions and my first goal is to be true to myself and the community. I also want to try to mitigate any concerns with the review that would take away from its validity.
I am 100% with you that I don’t think you should rely on software and really should get the best images in camera. I could very easily just left the issue but as you can see, I tried three different spacer combinations, which given it required a trip to the hardware store each time and taking apart the entire back end of the optical train wasn’t super simple and shows my dedication to try to get it right without any aid of star correction.
If you watch my top 10 takeaways for 2023 you’ll see that I say not to rely heavily on software and it’s definitely not the best practice I subscribe to
Too expensive scope for the poor results. Definitly takahashi is the best scope in the market place. For me Takahashi FSQ-106EDX4 f/5 is the best scope ever. I did chnage my mind I decide for Takahashi. WO need to work more to improve this scope.
Nice review. I’d expect this scope to have limited sales. Price points off, and IMO internal focus and multiple lenses are going to have significant moisture / dew / mold problems. Add in what looks like poor corner performance /back-focus issues and it’s a hard pass for me.
Hopefully others have a better luck than me. If you’re a die hard William optics fan and really love the features it could be worth it especially if APSC. But if you’re just a hard-core manager using a full frame, it’s tough to say yes at this point.
Very poor star shapes for a septuplet internal focus design. An attractive ID and innovative internal focusing means nothing if the the star images are poor. All show, no go.
Yeah I’m hopefully other copies fair better but given the other aberration inspector I got from another early owner it’s not looking super hopeful. I was really excited to get this and do love all the features (In theory) but as you said the end result is the true test
Put the heater on around the tube where the lenses are, not around the cap :)
The dew strap is located directly over the final lens element when the dew shield is full extended. It’s not around the cap in any portion of the video it’s 4-5 inches back from the end of the scope where the cap is, directly cover the 111mm lens element 👍🏼
I'm confused by all your back-focus adjusting with spacers. If you are not using a reducer, there is no back-focus. The spacer rings on Petzval-like designs are just to bring the sensor into the middle range of the focus travel. Then use the main focuser. That's their instructions. Adding another spacer ring is just the exact same as turning the main focus knob -- there is no difference because all the internal lenses move together. Furthermore, because this scope is focusing the center stars smaller than your pixel scale, there is a whole range of focus where the middle stars will look focused. At least that is what WO's published spot diagram indicates. Therefore, if you want round stars in the corner, then focus on a star in the corner, and I bet the stars in the center stay round and pretty much focused. Focusing in the corner will be easier because you focus to eliminate star elongation, which shows up very obviously. Anyway, what did William Optics tell you themselves? Did they respond to your video? If not, did you ask them for a response? BTW, this is the same story for the Redcat series. I would always focus in the corners on those scopes, as well. One last thing: if WO doesn't have good control on the lenses vs. internal lens spacing, then they could have some field curvature. So if you focus in the corner to eliminate elongation, do the center stars grow enough to look out of focus? It would be sad if this were the case.
Long focal length combined with big glass simply is costly.
Yes it is! Especially with more pieces of it!
When you say ape-o do you mean Apochromat ?
It’s “APO” it’s a very commonly used abbreviation for Apo-chromatic, yes
18:53 if you intend to use it in full frame, to my eyes this is unacceptable. There are many other scopes - less expensive - which performs a lot better
Yeah it was disappointing for sure, especially given how it was advertised and positioned to be kind of their ultimate astrograph, but hopefully they’ve done something about it or would help somebody who purchased the scope. I tested it vs a Stellaevue SVX 102 with their .74 reducer at F5.2 the images had better FWHM and SNR numbers well noticeably brighter. That scope right now can be bought under $3000 with the reducer on sale, and still get 714mm with the 1x
@@darkrangersinc from what I have read in forums, WO is generally very good for design, packaging and robustness but not the best in optics.. as surprising as it sounds, i think there was no flaw and that's just what you get.
The company that I am more looking at those days is Askar. I got a few scopes from them and I have been positively surprised by the quality so far. Still a few issues of course but really positive impressions.
Help me I'm poor
😂😂 this genuinely made me laugh out loud. I did give a more budget friendly option at the end, but still not necessarily what people would consider cheap.
@darkrangersinc Any recommendations more in the 1k range? I am looking for the longest focal length and will work on an 11lb payload mount. I'm in between the 65phq and Apertura 75Q
@@ballashoes the 75Q actually lists the glass type and at its sale price of $999 is tough to beat assuming it comes collimated and correctly appropriately.